The U.P. Cooperative Societies Act excludes the jurisdiction of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for disputes between employees of cooperative societies and the societies.

JUDGMENT :

1. The award passed by U.P. Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow dated 23.4.2011 has been questioned by the petitioner, wherein the claim of the respondent-employee has been allowed, and his order of termination has been set aside and the petitioners have been directed to reinstate him in service with effect from 1.1.1985 and he has also been held entitled to 50 per cent back wages.

2. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 9.3.2010 whereby the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to decide the dispute pertaining to the cooperative society has been rejected.

3. The facts in brief necessary for adjudication of the present controversy are that respondent No.3-employee, namely, Ajay Kumar Mishra was appointed on adhoc basis for 89 days with effect from 16.2.1982. His employment was extended from time to time till 31.12.1984 after which he was not allowed to continue in service.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the petitioner in terminating his services he moved Conciliation Officer under U.P. Industrial Tribunals Act, 1947. On failure of the conciliation proceedings the matter was referred for adjudication by the Tribunal on the question with regard to the validity of his termination with effect from 1.1.1985. Notices were issued to the petitioner who appeared before the tribunal and contested the claim of the respondent-employee. It was stated that he was initially appointed on the post of Operator and posted at Copaganj, District Azamgarh on 16.2.1982 and subsequently transferred to Cold Storage, Shahjahanpur (Jaunpur) on his own request with effect from 12.11.1983. Some disciplinary inquiry was also initiated against the employee as there was damage to the potatoes in the said cold storage due to which he was transferred from Shahjahanpur to Head Office, Lucknow where he worked till 31.12.1984. Subsequently, his name was struck off from the attendance register.

5. In the written statement filed by the petitioner it was stated that the employee was engaged only for 89 days but subsequently his services were extended from time to time considering that his services were needed in the working of the federation.

6. The employee himself gave evidence in support of his claim while Sri Lal Bahadur, Additional, Additional District Cooperative Federation Officer appeared for the employer and after hearing both the parties the Tribunal rejected the claim of the employee holding that his services had come to an end on expiry of the period prescribed in his letter of appointment and further he was not entitled to any relief vide order dated 3.4.1991.

7. The employee being aggrieved of the order of Tribunal dated 3.4.1991 filed writ petition before this Court being writ petition No.1350 (S/S) of 1994 (Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs. Industrial Tribunal (II), Lucknow). This Court by means of judgment and order dated 11.4.2008 quashed the award dated 3.4.1991 and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh.

8. When the matter was remanded back the petitioner submitted his written statement again and submitted that the controversy in question could not be adjudicated by the Tribunal as per the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Limited Vs. Additional Labour Commissioner and others, 2008 (1) SCC (LNS) 90 where it has been held that provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act would apply for adjudication of dispute in the matters of employment of the society to the exclusion of other labour laws including U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

9. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner was rejected by means of order dated 09.03.2010 which order has also been impugned in the present writ petition.

10. Subsequent to rejection of the preliminary objection the matter was proceeded with and the statements of the employer along with one Vinod Kumar Pandey, Assistant Accountant and Accountant appeared for the employee were record